targets are specific and help procure funding/protection for priorities

the steering committee is looking for these by the end of 2008

they would like proposals for a few reservoir projects

projects will get prioritized during the funding process

each state identified 10 reservoirs that would be good candidates for habitat work

listed on handout

much discussion about the lakes that were listed and that they were often the top fisheries in each of the states. The big question was “why are these lakes on the habitat needs list?” This was revisited on Day 2 as Steve Sammons described the different methods for assigning priorities (see below).

Further discussion/comments on Robinson’s overview by the Reservoir Committee:

Jackson: how do we come up with a number/percentage? Can we measure angler satisfaction?

Colvin: we should relate targets to sportfish management. We manage reservoirs for sportfish and if we can’t tie our targets to that then we aren’t doing our jobs

Sammons: this isn’t sportfish funding, it’s habitat funding and improvement; we need to think differently by changing the paradigm, although sportfish ultimately benefit

Robinson: duck folks can’t directly tie their habitat work to duck populations. It is understood that improving habitat will improve fishing

Taylor: funding is most commonly tied to fishing or physical gains and is necessary to gain industry and public involvement

Allen: we need to identify the broad brushes we can apply across many lakes vs. what we can do in a lake to protect current habitat and improve the fishing. Start with small reservoirs where we can directly measure improvements

Janssen and Jackson: we’re going to need to develop a standardized reservoir habitat assessment protocol; that could be a target (see below)

Taylor: ask Steve Miranda to break down his survey to identify and assess priorities by state

Robinson: it would be good to identify our needs as well as what we have, but, ultimately, we need hard targets making it easier to shop around for funding

Slaughter: described Lake Oconee, GA, SARP project success and how initial seed funding has blossomed into a multi-year $500,000 project

July 24

Addressed/discussed objectives in SARP plan relative to reservoirs and targets; issues from pre-meeting e-mail responses to Sammons were similar to current SARP plan

Objective 1) Establish, improve, and maintain riparian zones

Targets

1a. shoreline development
1b. shoreline stabilization/erosion control

Discussion:

Heitman: all the lakes on the list from the steering committee have some development, can we get some estimates of how much?

Robinson: that is being worked on, but they don’t have that info yet; determining a specific target number for % shoreline protection was discussed

Sammons: suggested using studies from northern natural lakes as a guide until more work is done on reservoirs

Janssen: problem with current studies is the small scale; how to broaden that to an entire reservoir? Need to define meaningful habitat for different guilds.

Robinson: described the plan as a working document that could be updated as better information became available.

Colvin: suggested that a target could be stated as “x” reservoirs to fall under a reservoir management plan by a specific time rather than aiming for a specific % riparian protection measure

Heitman: EPA is developing nutrient standards, but we want chlorophyll, DO, phosphorus, and nitrates. We can’t let regulators setting these standards strip our lakes of things we need for fisheries. West Point Reservoir was given as an example. Potential problem is conflict between state agencies (Fisheries WQ vs. water withdrawal WQ)

Colvin: we can’t let targets/standards set by others (e.g., stream folks upstream) have negative effects on what we are trying to accomplish in reservoirs. Some of our needs may conflict with targets set by others and we should
explicitly point this out

Robinson: this inter-agency conflict may get state agencies talking to each other Colvin and Horton: letters should be written to fish chiefs and WQ chiefs of each state regarding nutrient benefits to fisheries and possible inclusion in WQ standards

Allen: we need to point out that a single nutrient target doesn’t fit everywhere because lakes naturally vary (e.g., naturally hyper-eutrophic lakes in FL)

Heitman: we need to tie water quality standards to fish and specify targets for each reservoir system that can be different than upstream and downstream.
Heitman will work on developing a letter or resolution to AFS stating the concerns about considering reservoir fisheries in WQ standards

Dennis: suggested dam release minimum flows be considered along with DO because of riverine spawning fish in reservoir chains

Taylor and Sammons: focus on reduction of forebay hypoxic zones, much like focus on tailraces

Slaughter: recommended that releases are based on the amount of inflow for that year and not a long term average

downstream MFLs can hurt reservoir fisheries management

management plans should decrease the downstream focus

Abney: for FERC dam re-licensing, outflow should depend upon current, natural conditions over the license duration; license articles must address both reservoir and downstream fisheries

Sykes: if people are relying on the water downstream (e.g., industry, municipalities), we can’t hold the water in a lake and deny them

Other: MFLs are not the answer; reservoir targets may conflict with others, a policy related target was suggested such as: “increase the number of lakes with reservoir fisheries considerations in the water schedule by “x” date

Jackson: consider upstream sediment sources and habitat of river spawning fish that reside in reservoirs

Heitman: likely that few reservoirs will not be Clean Water Act 303d impaired because of sediment. May need to define “beneficial use” of reservoirs in terms of sportfish production because you have to protect a “beneficial
use,” which would involve nutrients and sediments

Horton: may not be able to do that because of Federal licensing and delegated use

Slaughter: suggested conservation of reservoir created wetlands as a target

Other: a target could be “reducing the number of acres or segments of reservoirs that are adversely impacted by sedimentation” or reduce sedimentation rates to “natural” or “historical” conditions, with caveat that it will be hard
to define either

6a. habitat barge in every state
6b. increase complex littoral habitats to cover 15-30% of total reservoir area (based on standards for submersed aquatic vegetation)
6c. increase/restore spawning/juvenile habitat in reservoirs and create such habitats that would not be dewatered if reservoir was 25% below full pool
6d. implement at least one demonstration project involving a whole-lake manipulation of littoral complex habitat by 2012

Other: for now the assessment should have the quality of being able to be quickly conducted and can go finer scale from there. Exotics should be broken out as separate habitat types. Fred Janssen and Colton Dennis will work on
this for the mid year meeting.

Identifying SARP priority habitats:

Discussion:

Sammons: this likely explains the lakes that are on the list from the states

we may want to hold our own workshop and ID the good and poor lakes

Horton: Reservoir Partnership is holding a similar meeting to strategize about how to proceed

Other: when would the proposed workshop be held? New Orleans, Nashville?
For now we have 2 tasks:

developing and assessing reservoir habitats throughout the Southeast

a habitat project to see if habitat restoration/management will work

Project discussion:

Horton: project has no guaranteed funding so needs clear objectives, community support, reasonable to complete, and measurable outcome

Robinson: projects should be holistic

Sammons: we’re only proposing ideas to SARP, they will prioritize during the funding process

Ideas:

Allen: reviewed a previous idea of a project to reverse reservoir aging – fill a small system with habitat, have control lakes, pre & post electrofishing and creel data, and needs long term buy-in, monitoring, and cooperation
Work on lakes with low water levels:

Jackson: Cumberland Lake (KY) is low due to dam repair and could do something with water level management and fish production

Slaughter: Lake Lanier (GA) is low and could get permits for sediment removal

Robinson: could plant fast growing trees (loblolly pine) on Lanier for when water comes back up

Rehabilitation of the Tennessee-Tombigbee waterway (Larry Pugh)

Other comments:

Horton: if we want to perpetuate habitat work, there has to be an economic benefit

Sykes: aquatic plant planting at Hartwell and Russell had good GA/SC support, 9,000 plants, but less than 1 acre benefited

Slaughter: one tournament visit (that wasn’t coming before) can be big for small lake community economics

Colvin: remember that we are faced with the challenge of separating attraction from production

Allen: we should work on a small enough system (e.g., < 500 acres) where we can get good abundance estimates before and after, maybe a state lake